Neeraj Gautam vs BSNL on 29 October 2026

1. Heard the parties at substantial length.

2. By way of the present OA, the applicant is seeking quashing of the transfer order dated 21.09.2026, whereby the applicant has been transferred from the post of AGM, Dehradun Operational Area (OA) under Sr. GM, Dehradun BA to Chamoli Distt. HQ and to set aside rejection order dated 29.09.2026 (Annexure A-2) and also seeking direction to the respondents to allow the applicant to continue at original place of posting as AGM, Dehradun OA under Sr. GM, Dehradun BA to avail transfer immunity up to 18.01.2029 pursuant to Circle Office Order dated 15.07.2026 and in accordance with enforceable right under Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 10 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Recognition of Executives’ Association) Rules, 2014

3. The grievance of the applicant as projected by the learned counsel for the applicant can be summarized as under:

(I). Circle conference of SC & ST Employees Welfare Association (SEWA), BSNL, Uttarakhand, has unanimously elected the applicant for Uttarakhand governing body for a tenure of 3 years w.e.f 19.01.2026. The applicant has been duly elected as Finance Secretary as evident from details forwarded on 21.01.2026 as to the Elected Circle Governing Body of SC & ST Employees Welfare Association (SEWA), BSNL, Uttarakhand Telecom Circle (Annexure A-3). (II). The respondents have notified Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Recognition of Executives’ Association) Rules, 2014 and Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 10 specifically provides concession of immunity from transfer from the CHQ/Circle/SSA of recognized Association applicable to the General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary and Finance Secretary/ Treasurer upto the recognition period of the concerned Association. (III). The applicant is elected office bearer on the post of Finance Secretary/ Treasurer for tenure of 3 years beyond 29.01.2026 and is entitled for immunity from transfer in accordance with legally enforceable right as per Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 10 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Recognition of Executives’ Association) Rules, 2014. Hence, the immunity cannot be withdrawn by impugned orders. (IV). The respondents have issued office order dated 15.07.2026 and have reiterated that immunity is available to the applicant at Circle level from 19.01.2026 to 18.01.2029 and the same order is in force till today related to similarly placed AGM and in case of applicant is also entitled for the immunity. Applicant cannot be discriminated for oblique motive, malice in law. Respondents are estopped to issue impugned transfer order till 18.01.2029 qua the applicant. The impugned orders qua the applicant are contrary to order dated 15.07.2026 and Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 10 of Rules, 2014. (V). The applicant is elected office bearer of SC & ST Employees Welfare Association (SEWA), BSNL, Uttarakhand and has legally enforceable right to claim immunity from transfer as per Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Recognition of Executives’ Association) Rules, 2014 and he has not availed the said immunity at Circle level and is availing for the first time being elected Finance Secretary/ Treasurer of the Association. The respondents have arbitrarily, with malafide exercise of power, issued impugned order qua the applicant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued in support of impugned transfer orders as under: (I). Office Order dated 15.07.2026 stipulates that in case of any instructions issued by the BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi, regarding immunity in view of the proposed Organizational Restructuring in Uttarakhand Circle as the Pilot Circle will be applicable. (II). The applicant is not entitled for availing immunity as per Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 10 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Recognition of Executives’ Association) Rules, 2014, which stipulates that facility enjoyed once at any level, viz. CHQ/Circle or SSA will not be available for the second time and the applicant has already availed immunity at BA/ Distt. Level from 15.06.2019 to 15.06.2022. (III). The transfer order dated 07.04.2022 also mentions that immunity from transfer being office bearer of SEWA and he availed immunity at the Distt. Level. (IV). The representations of the applicant has been considered in rejection order dated 29/30.09.2026 whereby the order relating to grant of immunity dated 15.07.2026 has been declared null and void.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant presses for ad- interim protection to stay the effect and operation of the transfer order dated 21.09.2026 and relieving order dated 15.10.2026 qua the applicant and allow the applicant to continue at present place of posting, i.e. AGM, Dehradun Operational Area (OA) under Sr. GM, Dehradun BA, and disburse monthly salary during the pendency of present OA.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes prayer for grant of interim relief to the applicant and seeks short time to file short reply on grant of interim relief as well as reply on merits.

7. Heard. We have considered the matter.

8. Undisputedly, the applicant is an elected Finance Secretary/ Treasurer in the Governing Body of SC & ST Employees Welfare Association (SEWA), BSNL, Uttarakhand for tenure of 3 years from 19.01.2026 to 18.01.2029. The case of applicant for grant of immunity from transfer has been considered and with the approval of competent authority, the respondents have granted immunity available to the applicant at Circle Level from 19.01.2026 to 18.01.2029 vide order dated 15.07.2026 (Annexure A-5). As evident from Office Order dated 15.072026 issued with the approval of competent authority whereby modified the transfer order dated 10.08.2026 of the applicant from Srinagar OA under PGM, Haridwar, BA to Dehradun OA under Sr. GM, Dehradun, the original place of posting. The applicant has been again transferred within a period of two months vide impugned transfer orders, contrary to Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 10 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Recognition of Executives’ Association) Rules, 2014 and Office Order dated 15.07.2026, whereby the same authority granted immunity at Circle Level from 19.01.2026 to 18.01.2029.

9. Office Order dated 15.07.2026 was issued modification of transfer orders of two AGM Cadre Officers. In case of another AGM Officer, after relieving order, the officer retained after relieved and granted immunity, whereas by for extraneous consideration, the present applicant has been again transferred. The exercise of power to transfer the applicant prima facie appears to be not bonafide and reasonable and would amount to malafide and colorable exercise of power.

10. The letter dated 04.08.2026 issued by BSNL C.O., specifically mentions that decision of not extending the immunity to any eligible office bearer should be only in an exceptional situation for prior information to CGM and Director (HR) in CO. The competent authority, CGM, Uttarakhand, has issued an earlier transfer order dated 10.08.2026 qua the applicant and the other officer and modified vide order dt. 15.07.2026 granting immunity to both the AGMs being office bearers and discriminated, by mala fide exercise of power, and issued impugned orders. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Recognition of Executives’ Association) Rules, 2014 can be relaxed as per Rule 16 with consultation of representative associations. So also, executive instructions will not prevail over the notified Rules, 2014 and the impugned transfer order qua the applicant is contrary to Rule 10 (5), 10 and 16 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Recognition of Executives’ Association) Rules, 2014.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant much emphasised that in garb of Pilot Organisational restructuring project by colourable exercise of power transferred.

12. As the son of the applicant is in Class-XII, in the case of Director of School Education Vs. KaruppaThevan, (1994) Supp.2 SCC 666, Their Lordships held that “except in case of pressing urgency transfer in the midst of academic year disturbing the studies of children should be avoided”. [Emphasis supplied]

13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. Vs. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 732 – Their Lordships observed that employees must be protected against wrongful and arbitrary pressure executed by the administrative superiors and other vested interests.

14. In the case of Shobha Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Anr., 2004

(3) ATJ 116, Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in WP No.304 of 2004 held that “If a person aggrieved by the transfer order approached the court or Tribunal assailing the same on grounds tenable under law and satisfied or convinced the court/Tribunal at an interim/interlocutory stage that the transfer order was indeed passed in violation of law – The mere fact that the person concerned has been relieved from the post cannot be a ground for refusing to stay the operation of the transfer order. [Emphasis supplied]

15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 – Their Lordships held that “The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive, it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power”.

16. In case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, Their Lordships held that “To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a court or Tribunal only where it is passed malafide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions” [Para 10].

17. In case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 411, Their Lordships held - “An order of transfer is an administrative order. Transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds –first malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal”.

18. The applicant has made out a strong prima facie case in his favour, the balance of convenience also lies in his favour and delay in consideration for prayer for ad-interim relief may cause prejudice to him.

19. For all the reasons stated hereinabove and in our considered opinion, applicant is entitled for some ad-interim protection at this stage.

20. By way of interim measure, this Tribunal deem it fit and proper and hereby direct that operation and effect of impugned transfer Order dated 21.09.2026 (Annexure A-1) qua the applicant shall remain stayed and consequent thereof ex parte relieving Order dated 15.10.2026 shall also remain stayed. The respondents are further directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant and allow the applicant to continue at his original post and place of posting i.e. as AGM, Dehradun Operational Area (OA) under Sr. GM, Dehradun BA and disburse monthly salary till the next date of hearing.

21. Respondents may file their reply/ short reply within three weeks.

22. Modification or continuation of ad-interim order passed today shall also be considered after filing of short reply/ appropriate application.

23. List this matter on 20.11.2026 for further consideration.

24. Registry is directed to expedite issuance of certified copy of this Order as per rules.

Rajinder Kashyap Member (A) Ajay Pratap Singh Member (J) Karan ( steno 'd' )